American awaits verdict after Iran spy trial: Report

US State Department spokesman Mark Toner last week urged Tehran to release Hekmati immediately.


Reuters January 02, 2012

TEHRAN: The trial in Iran of an American who confessed in detention to being a CIA spy has ended and he is awaiting the verdict, the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted a judicial official as saying on Monday.

Amir Mirza Hekmati, a 28-year-old of Iranian descent, could face the death penalty if found guilty of cooperating with a hostile government and spying for the CIA. He was arrested in December.

Iran's Intelligence Ministry accused Hekmati of receiving training at US bases in neighbouring Afghanistan and Iraq.

Shortly after his detention, state television showed a taped interview of him confessing to being a spy. At his trial he admitted to having links with the CIA but said he had no intention of harming Iran.

The trial comes at a time of heightened tension between Iran and the US, which is leading efforts to tighten sanctions on Tehran because of its controversial nuclear programme.

US State Department spokesman Mark Toner last week urged Tehran to release Hekmati immediately. He said that Switzerland, which represents US interests in Iran in the absence of formal diplomatic ties, had formally requested permission for consular access to Hekmati on December 24 but Iran had refused.

"America's request for the return of the accused, indicates their utmost impudence and he should be tried based on the country's laws," justice ministry spokesman Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei said.

Iran said in May it had arrested 30 people on suspicion of spying for the United States, and 15 people were later indicted for spying for Washington and Israel.

COMMENTS (3)

K.C. | 12 years ago | Reply

Hekmati should not have gone to Iran in the first place. He is a spy, thus guilty and accountable for his actions. If he is caught, he will be trialed based on that country's laws. There is no need to ask for his release or to pity him.

K.C. | 12 years ago | Reply

The published date of this article is wrong. We are January 2nd, not January 3rd. Unless you live in the future.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ